Greg Desilet Says: May 1st, 2007 at 11:14 am Hello. I have just now had the opportunity to sit down and check the activity here at open integral and was stunned to find all the comments...However, with respect to what you say here and in other postings about Nagarjuna, I am uncertain whether to agree or not. The book I have focused on recently, Harold Coward’s “Derrida and Indian Philosophy” contains a chapter on Derrida and Nagarjuna where Coward claims that the differences between Derrida and Nagarjuna exceed the similarities, especially concerning the role of language. Here’s Coward’s summary:
“The constrast between Nagarjuna and Derrida is clear. For Nagarjuna language is empty of reality and must be transcended for reality to be realized. By contrast, Derrida sees language to be rooted in reality.”
And further:
“To go from inscribed trace (writing) to spoken word and the arche-writing that prefigures and predisposes both, only to be thrown back again, in a continual deconstructive reverse, would seem to be Derrida’s use of language as a means for spiritual realization. Although this may look like the Buddhist prescription of Nagarjuna, it is not. The deconstructive reverse does not result in the silence (sunya) of language, but rather in the realization that the dynamic tension in the becoming of language is itself the whole.” For me, Derrida (in contrast to Wilber and perhaps Nagarjuna) seems to emphasize the duality in nonduality for the purpose of countering the tendency to transcend (or want to transcend) the other. For Derrida the other is irreducible in the self/other tension and this preserved duality insures that the other remains ontologically necessary. This necessity reduces the sometimes all too human tendency to think of some other as essentially not part of the economy of reality and therefore ultimately worthy of elimination in a kind of transcendence that can manifest itself in both malign and benign forms of “violence.”But I understand that Nagarjuna may be much more subtle than Coward claims above (and Coward acknowledges this possibility). And it may well be, as Berge suggests, that Nagarjuna and Derrida are very close metaphysical cousins. However, I still have my doubts and need to study this more. It may be that Madhyamika may offer more transcendentalism (collapse of dualistic tensions) than Derrida would subscribe to.I appreciate all that has been said in others’ posts and must continue trying to absorb it. Again, sorry for the delay in offering some kind of response/clarification. I’m sure I’ve overlooked some important points already made in this discussion. But I take criticism well, so feel free to have at it. I will continue to stay tuned in, but may sometimes be slow in responding due to time constraints.
“The constrast between Nagarjuna and Derrida is clear. For Nagarjuna language is empty of reality and must be transcended for reality to be realized. By contrast, Derrida sees language to be rooted in reality.”
And further:
“To go from inscribed trace (writing) to spoken word and the arche-writing that prefigures and predisposes both, only to be thrown back again, in a continual deconstructive reverse, would seem to be Derrida’s use of language as a means for spiritual realization. Although this may look like the Buddhist prescription of Nagarjuna, it is not. The deconstructive reverse does not result in the silence (sunya) of language, but rather in the realization that the dynamic tension in the becoming of language is itself the whole.” For me, Derrida (in contrast to Wilber and perhaps Nagarjuna) seems to emphasize the duality in nonduality for the purpose of countering the tendency to transcend (or want to transcend) the other. For Derrida the other is irreducible in the self/other tension and this preserved duality insures that the other remains ontologically necessary. This necessity reduces the sometimes all too human tendency to think of some other as essentially not part of the economy of reality and therefore ultimately worthy of elimination in a kind of transcendence that can manifest itself in both malign and benign forms of “violence.”But I understand that Nagarjuna may be much more subtle than Coward claims above (and Coward acknowledges this possibility). And it may well be, as Berge suggests, that Nagarjuna and Derrida are very close metaphysical cousins. However, I still have my doubts and need to study this more. It may be that Madhyamika may offer more transcendentalism (collapse of dualistic tensions) than Derrida would subscribe to.I appreciate all that has been said in others’ posts and must continue trying to absorb it. Again, sorry for the delay in offering some kind of response/clarification. I’m sure I’ve overlooked some important points already made in this discussion. But I take criticism well, so feel free to have at it. I will continue to stay tuned in, but may sometimes be slow in responding due to time constraints.
No comments:
Post a Comment